The English Channel

danlightbulb said:
Taking Iran as the example, do you think people should be coming here from Iran? Its quite a popular country for tourists to visit, it has a strong economy, as you say it has a decent education system. Yes it may be undemocratic and religiously biased, however it is not a war torn country from which people should be seeking refuge.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, Iran is one of the best Muslim countries to be non-muslim.

The technological level of development of a country does not mean everyone there is safe from some fairly horrific persecution.

The USSR had ever increasing tractor production, and decent education by historical standards, but millions of people were disappeared "without right of correspondence". Millions more were transported thousands of miles to barren tundra.

Genuine cases should be heard.

The other cases need a better resolution than the current system provides. That probably includes removal arrangements.
 
potatolord said:
Funnily enough, Iran is one of the best Muslim countries to be non-muslim.

The technological level of development of a country does not mean everyone there is safe from some fairly horrific persecution.

The USSR had ever increasing tractor production, and decent education by historical standards, but millions of people were disappeared "without right of correspondence". Millions more were transported thousands of miles to barren tundra.

Genuine cases should be heard.
Click to expand...

If we genuinely have issue with how other countries treat their people, then we should go the whole hog and take them over, and fix it at source.

If we don't care then we just let them get on with it.

This middle ground of taking a very small proportion of people, I just don't see what benefit it gives us or them as a population. It benefits a few individuals only.
 
They can find someone to arrest when a bunch of people die but are completely unable to arrest anyone beforehand.

People smuggers shot a migrant in the knee for refusing to board a boat today or yesterday. Amazingly they're able to do openly and was anyone arrested by the French? Nope.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/26/smug...efusing-to-board-boat-headed-for-uk-15669225/

Meanwhile Macron is parading around with his nose in the air like the utter prat he is.
 
The less consequences there are, the more people will take advantage. This is true everywhere.

A few hundred years ago, migrants like this, appearing outside a major city, would have risked just being attacked and killed. It would have been a big reason not to bother coming.

Now, because we're 'more developed' we won't do this. They know this, so the problem worsens.

We need a hard line on this. Lets get the numbers in the camps back down so that we can see what's actually happening in them. This means shipping people back out in bulk - to do this we'll need a fast pre-qual system that gives a stay or go result quickly. Then lets kill the criminal gangs and smugglers. Then we'll see who is actually left who has a real need to be here.
 
cheesyboy said:
Except evidence suggests longer sentencing does nothing to prevent crime.

Again, try using facts rather than feelings
Click to expand...
Unless they're the kind of feelings that lead to suggesting completely open borders and unlimited immigration, which are good feelings, right?

What do you actually know about the people trying to make this illegal crossing? Were they good people? Bad people? Were any of them IS sympathisers? Did they have criminal convictions?
 
cheesyboy said:
Except evidence suggests longer sentencing does nothing to prevent crime.

Again, try using facts rather than feelings
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if what you say is true, then we need to accept that we'll be better off just killing these people. And I know no-one will like it, but if what you say is true and there can be no way to deter these people, then the world would be better off without them in it. Maybe that would act as sufficient deterrent?

We are trying to treat uncivilised people in a civilised way. It won't work.
 
FoxEye said:
"We" didn't do it, the governments of the day did it, and never with a referendum or anything to seek the approval of the populace.

And in some cases this happened before we were even born. I mean, the British Empire spread all over the world and did many immoral and questionable things.

So I don't think anyone should necessarily think that this is karma. But we should recognise that some of the people (maybe a lot of them) will be coming here purely for their personal benefit, whilst simultaneously disliking the British and our history and our culture.

This is something else that's often overlooked by the "we need unlimited immigration" crowd. If they don't integrate, they are a future problem. It really is that simple. And many of them flat out don't want to integrate. They want to be here, but they want to live like they were back in some ultra-conservative culture, which may or may not have blasphemy laws...
Click to expand...

Maybe you're forgetting that 'we' the populace vote in Governments to do our bidding. Thankfully I've never voted for a Government that has taken us to war.

The position we find ourselves in as Brits is a direct result of things that happened during the Empire (ie a world power). Most of our wealth, status, and society has come from the actions and exploitations of that time.

I do agree that it need to be controlled and limited. Just I don't think one can really blame people trying to get here after everything that's happened to them.
 
danlightbulb said:
Unfortunately, if what you say is true, then we need to accept that we'll be better off just killing these people. And I know no-one will like it, but if what you say is true and there can be no way to deter these people, then the world would be better off without them in it. Maybe that would act as sufficient deterrent?

We are trying to treat uncivilised people in a civilised way. It won't work.
Click to expand...
Well before we kill people perhaps we should try the things that are supported by evidence to reduce crime? Investing in youth services, reducing poverty, improving education.
 
bloodiedathame said:
Maybe you're forgetting that 'we' the populace vote in Governments to do our bidding. Thankfully I've never voted for a Government that has taken us to war.

The position we find ourselves in as Brits is a direct result of things that happened during the Empire (ie a world power). Most of our wealth, status, and society has come from the actions and exploitations of that time.

I do agree that it need to be controlled and limited. Just I don't think one can really blame people trying to get here after everything that's happened to them.
Click to expand...
A lot of it didn't happen to them, it happened to their grandparents (since we're talking about Empire).

Of the recent stuff, esp in Africa, that's 100% down to the corruption of their own governments, and various tribal conflicts, and religious wars, etc. Which is largely nothing to do with us alive today.

I completely reject the idea of modern Brits being blamed for anything that happened before they were even born. Completely.

e: And as comes up time and time again, why stop at the British Empire? Why not blame the Romans, the Vikings, the ...
 
danlightbulb said:
If we genuinely have issue with how other countries treat their people, then we should go the whole hog and take them over, and fix it at source.

If we don't care then we just let them get on with it.

This middle ground of taking a very small proportion of people, I just don't see what benefit it gives us or them as a population. It benefits a few individuals only.
Click to expand...

Expecting other countries to cleave to our standards is unrealistic.

It is not a reason to invade them.
 
cheesyboy said:
Well before we kill people perhaps we should try the things that are supported by evidence to reduce crime? Investing in youth services, reducing poverty, improving education.
Click to expand...
Would be money for that if we weren't supporting the world's poor who decide to come here
 
danlightbulb said:
The less consequences there are, the more people will take advantage. This is true everywhere.

A few hundred years ago, migrants like this, appearing outside a major city, would have risked just being attacked and killed. It would have been a big reason not to bother coming.

Now, because we're 'more developed' we won't do this. They know this, so the problem worsens.

We need a hard line on this. Lets get the numbers in the camps back down so that we can see what's actually happening in them. This means shipping people back out in bulk - to do this we'll need a fast pre-qual system that gives a stay or go result quickly. Then lets kill the criminal gangs and smugglers. Then we'll see who is actually left who has a real need to be here.
Click to expand...
The west of a soft touch and they know it
 
cheesyboy said:
Except evidence suggests longer sentencing does nothing to prevent crime.

Again, try using facts rather than feelings
Click to expand...

Realistically, no sentencing regime can prevent crime.

Longer sentencing prevents prolific offenders from committing crimes while they are locked up. That's why first offenders get lesser sentences.
 
LabR@t said:
Would be money for that if we weren't supporting the world's poor who decide to come here
Click to expand...
30k asylum seekers per annum is probably not draining our budget too much tbh.

There would be money for it if it were a policy our government wasn't ideologically opposed to. It's as simple as that.
 
potatolord said:
Longer sentencing prevents prolific offenders from committing crimes while they are locked up. That's why first offenders get lesser sentences.
Click to expand...
Without investment in rehabilitation, prison simply serves to incubate criminality: you become more of a criminal thanks to imprisonment.

If the aim is deterrent : it doesn't deter. If the aim is crime reduction : it doesn't reduce.
 
LabR@t said:
It was considered morally wrong to be homosexual just few years ago and now it not?
Click to expand...

It's been widely excepted for a fair few decades in the west but it's understandable that the number of "archaic's" that roam GD would assume that.

LabR@t said:
Would be money for that if we weren't supporting the world's poor who decide to come here
Click to expand...

What about all the cruise ships you wanted for offshore processing?
Would cost many, many billions although, it would be propping up our entertainment industry what with all of the free shows, food and drink you would be offering to them "illegal immigrants" :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom